Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of
Arbitrator John F. Caraway filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the
Union's exceptions.

The Arbitrator denied a grievance alleging that the Agency failed to
provide training and other benefits to employees hired under the Veterans
Readjustment Appointment (VRA) program.(1)

For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union's exceptions fail
to establish that the award is deficient. Accordingly, we deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Agency failed to comply
with the requirements of the VRA program because, among other things,
"[v]eterans had not progressed to the Journeyman level[,]" veterans had not
been informed of training opportunities, and no training plans had been
developed. Award at 3. When the parties could not resolve the dispute, the
matter was submitted to arbitration.

Before the Arbitrator, the Union argued, as relevant here, that the
Agency failed to fulfill its training obligations under the VRA program and,
consequently, improperly denied veterans the non-competitive promotions they
would have received had they been properly trained. The Union claimed that the
actions of the Agency were contrary to 38 U.S.C. § 2014(a)(1),
which prescribes a policy of "promot[ing] the maximum of employment and job
advancement opportunities within the Federal Government for qualified disabled
veterans and veterans of the Vietnam era."(2) The Union argued that Chapter 7, paragraph 1-5a(1)
of the "'VRA' regulation" required the Agency to provide formal training for
the veterans it employs.(3)Id. at 9. The Union also claimed that the Agency
violated the parties' agreement by failing to provide formal training to
veterans.

The Agency disputed the Union's claim that veterans were entitled to
non-competitive promotions. The Agency also argued that it had provided
appropriate training opportunities and training plans for veterans and that it
had not violated the parties' agreement.

The Arbitrator found that there was no authority to support the Union's
claim that VRA appointees "were entitled to non-competitive promotion up to the
GS-11 grade level or its WG equivalent." Id. at 25. The Arbitrator
found that the stated statutory objective of maximizing promotion opportunities
for veterans "does not automatically make a promotion non-competitive."
Id. at 26. The Arbitrator also found that promotions under the VRA
program were to be effected through merit and competitive procedures and,
citing U.S. Department of the Army, Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker,
Army Information Systems Command, Army Aeromedical Center, Army Troop Support
Agency, Army Dental Activity, Army Safety Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama and
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1815, 39 FLRA 865
(1991), noted that the VRA program does not give VRA appointees preference for
promotion.

The Arbitrator further determined that the Agency had provided veteran
employees with proper education and training under the VRA program, including
the development of training plans. The Arbitrator noted that where training
plans had not been provided, the Agency acted to implement a 2-year training
plan "to afford [veterans] additional training under a 'VRA' training plan."
Award at 41.

The Arbitrator also found that there was no law, rule or regulation
that mandated different training for VRA appointees from that provided to other
employees or that the Agency issue certificates of training to VRA appointees.
The Arbitrator found that there was a high promotion rate for VRA appointees,
indicating that the training the Agency provided "must be deemed to be very
satisfactory." Id. at 43. In sum, the Arbitrator denied the
grievance.

III. Exceptions

A. Union's Contentions

The Union contends that the award is deficient because it is contrary
to law insofar as the Agency failed to provide training and maintain records
and progress reviews for VRA appointees. The Union claims that the award is
contrary to FPM chapter 307 for the same reasons.

B. Agency's Opposition

The Agency asserts that the Union's exceptions constitute nothing more
than an attempt to relitigate the parties' dispute before the Authority. The
Agency contends that all the allegations contained in the Union's exceptions
were addressed and rejected by the Arbitrator.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

We reject the Union's contention that the award violates law pertaining
to VRA appointments. The Union has not cited any legal requirement that
mandates a particular type of training for VRA appointees or would otherwise
call into question the Arbitrator's finding that the Agency had provided VRA
appointees with adequate training. Rather, 38 U.S.C.
§ 4214(a)(1) expressly provides that its purpose is "to promote the
maximum of employment and job advancement opportunities within the Federal
Government" for eligible veterans. The Arbitrator found that the Agency
satisfied this requirement by providing adequate training to the veterans whom
it employed. Consequently, we conclude that the Union has not supported its
claim that the award is contrary to law.

We also conclude that there is no basis for finding the award deficient
under FPM chapter 307. In U.S. Department of the Navy, Mare Island
Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California and Federal Employees Metal Trades
Council, 49 FLRA 802, 811 (1994), the Authority addressed an exception
that relied on an abolished FPM provision. Citing Aaacon Auto Transport v.
ICC, 792 F.2d 1156, 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1986) and Bradley v. School
Board of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711 (1974), the Authority followed
the well-established principle of administrative law that, in general, agencies
must apply the law in effect at the time a decision is made, even when that law
has changed during the course of a proceeding, unless doing so would result in
manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to
the contrary. In this case, FPM chapter 307 was abolished effective
December 31, 1993. In our view, the failure to apply the abolished
provision in this case results in no manifest injustice and there is no
statutory direction or legislative history to apply the abolished provision.

V. Decision

The Union's exceptions are denied.

FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)

1. A VRA program appointment is an
excepted appointment of a veteran who served during the Vietnam era and the
post-Vietnam era to a position that would otherwise be a competitive
appointment. VRA appointments are made under the authority of 38 U.S.C.
§ 2014, renumbered as 38 U.S.C. § 4214 by
Pub. L. No. 102-83, § 5(a), Aug. 6, 1991,
105 Stat. 406 (1991). Seealso 5 C.F.R.
§ 307.101(d). A VRA appointee who satisfactorily completes
2 years of substantially continuous service is automatically converted to
career-conditional or career employment, as appropriate. See
5 C.F.R. § 307.102(b).

It is, therefore, the policy of the United States and the purpose of
this section to promote the maximum of employment and job advancement
opportunities within the Federal Government for disabled veterans and certain
veterans of the Vietnam era and of the post-Vietnam era who are qualified for
such employment and advancement.

3. The language quoted by the Union
appeared in chapter 307 of the Federal Personnel Manual (FPM). We note
that during the pendency of this case, FPM chapter 307 was abolished.
See FPM Sunset Document, Chapter Summary Sheet at 36.